This study examines how diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) practices are recalibrated, marginalized and symbolically reframed in organizational contexts where DEI has become politically and legally contested. Introducing the concept of “quiet revocation,” this article theorizes the implicit, rationalized withdrawal of DEI through symbolic power, field repositioning and doxic (taken-for-granted) assumptions, showing how organizations invoke inclusion while reframing or limiting it under the guise of neutrality.
This conceptual analysis applies a Bourdieusian tripartite framework, critical theorizing and abductive interpretation of selected studies, reports and salient contemporary political–legal debates (treated as contextual conditions rather than evidence of an historical rupture). Abduction is used as a philosophical mode of conceptual inference to explain emerging, counterintuitive patterns of DEI retrenchment, integrating disparate observations into the theoretical construct of quiet revocation.
The study identifies three interrelated mechanisms driving the subtle withdrawal of DEI: (1) symbolic reframing: symbolic power redesignates DEI as divisive or reputationally risky; (2) managerial recolonization: field dynamics exclude equality actors and reinterpret inclusion through powerful institutional logics and (3) epistemic disqualification: taken-for-granted assumptions of meritocracy and neutrality are treated as objective truths, thereby discrediting equality-based perspectives and rendering retrenchment organizationally defensible under claims of neutrality and merit.
The article outlines implications for practitioners and leaders, emphasizing the repositioning of DEI within strategic decision-making, safeguarding marginalized knowledge and fostering institutional reflexivity. It highlights the importance of resisting purely symbolic inclusion and sustaining work on equality under conditions of retrenchment.
Integrating a Bourdieusian framework with contemporary political–legal contestation around DEI, the article offers a conceptual account of how DEI retrenchment may be rationalized and enacted through subtle symbolic, structural and epistemic rollbacks rather than overt backlash.
